Jump to content

Talk:Oganesson: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 107: Line 107:


:Subsequent studies seem to have confirmed the cited 2005 prediction that it is solid and reactive, see e.g. "[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/anie.202011976 Oganesson: a noble gas element that is neither noble nor a gas]" (2020), and, if you have institutional logins, the citations at the bottom of the "The Late p-Block Elements" section of "[https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fchem.2020.00813/full Understanding Periodic and Non-periodic Chemistry in Periodic Tables]". I would like to add some more references to the article, but there's something weird going on with the Nash 2005 citation that I don't understand — it just says <code><nowiki><ref name="Nash2005"/></nowiki></code> all over the place, there's no actual specification of the reference that I can find. So I'm scared of breaking something. [[User:Elwoz|Elwoz]] ([[User talk:Elwoz|talk]]) 13:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:Subsequent studies seem to have confirmed the cited 2005 prediction that it is solid and reactive, see e.g. "[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/anie.202011976 Oganesson: a noble gas element that is neither noble nor a gas]" (2020), and, if you have institutional logins, the citations at the bottom of the "The Late p-Block Elements" section of "[https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fchem.2020.00813/full Understanding Periodic and Non-periodic Chemistry in Periodic Tables]". I would like to add some more references to the article, but there's something weird going on with the Nash 2005 citation that I don't understand — it just says <code><nowiki><ref name="Nash2005"/></nowiki></code> all over the place, there's no actual specification of the reference that I can find. So I'm scared of breaking something. [[User:Elwoz|Elwoz]] ([[User talk:Elwoz|talk]]) 13:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::I still don't understand what's going on with the Nash 2005 reference but I was able to add a reference to the 2020 "neither noble nor a gas" paper without breaking it. [[User:Elwoz|Elwoz]] ([[User talk:Elwoz|talk]]) 16:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:08, 23 October 2023

Template:Vital article

Featured articleOganesson is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 9, 2009.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 24, 2004Articles for deletionKept
February 27, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
April 7, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
December 10, 2007Good article nomineeListed
December 13, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
January 21, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
August 6, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
February 3, 2023Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 3, 2016, June 10, 2016, and December 3, 2016.
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 2, 2021.
Current status: Featured article

Uuo

@Jasper Deng: in this edit you reverted my addition to the lead of "known before it was discovered as Ununoctium (Uuo) or element 118". My edit summary was "Former names into the lead (these terms redirect here)". The redirect Uuo is used in the order of 40 times per month [1] and Ununoctium is used sometimes over 1000 times per month [2]. Is it reasonable that these thousands of users should have to scroll down to the Naming section to determine why those redirects target this page? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it actually is quite reasonable, because those names are not supposed to be used any more now that a trivial name has been selected, the old names were always explicitly provisional (so people should not be too surprised at why the redirect goes here; it must be that the element got a real name), and they are all derived directly from the atomic numbers (which are in the lede) anyway. As older periodic tables get replaced the number should only dwindle as people learn the updated names: just see the stats for Ununquadium (= flerovium, named 2012; less than 200 times per month), Ununbium (= copernicium, named 2010; now less than 120 times per month); Ununnilium (= darmstadtium, named 2003; now counting in the teens).
If we were going to be consistent about it, then logically all the elements from 104 would need a statement like this, because they had systematic names that were used for a time. But I think that would be far too much detail for names that are deprecated. Double sharp (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with this reasoning; redirects and brief mentions later in the article are sufficient. Also keep in mind that the systematic names from 104–109 haven't been used for over 20 years, so those are especially unlikely to be useful in the lead. ComplexRational (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We could add this to the infobox (only), as an alt name not bold. But I must note: in literature, this name/symbol is not used often. Usually, older publications use "element 118" and even notations like "293118" for the isotope.
Also, maybe more relevant: readers who arrive here through redirect Ununoctium or Uuo are already helped out. There is no need to explain "let us help you with where you came from". This is a basic property of Redirects, in this case. -DePiep (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As older periodic tables are updated (and old sites die), we should see less of this over time. I'm barely old enough to remember when 110 was blank, and in fact my first periodic table had "unnilhexium" on it (and called 105 "hahnium"). It went up to unnilennium and 110 wasn't on there. Later on I looked up this mysterious element 110 to see if seven-year-old me could propose a name and discovered it had already been named, as had 111. 112 was still ununbium, though. Now I haven't used that name in ten years and mentioning "ununbium" feels wrong now. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 21:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I added a full concordance for the old names to Systematic element name. Double sharp (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

one of two scientists alive...

I thought Einstein was also alive when Es was named? re: It is one of only two elements named after a person who was alive at the time of naming, the other being seaborgium, and the only element whose namesake is alive today. Crescent111 (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC) 02:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I believe our article on Einsteinium, it was first discovered in 1952 when Einstein was alive, reported on a conference in August 1955, during which Einstein died, and later (after the conference) IUPAC approved the name.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I explained it in a footnote. Einsteinium and fermium were decided as names when Einstein and Fermi were alive, but by the time they became official, both had died. Double sharp (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why Oganesson is introduced as Russian American scientist, when he is Armenian?

Why oganesson is introduced as Russian and American scientist when he is Armenian 62.89.17.85 (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His ethnicity is Armenian, but not his nationality. Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aristid von Grosse

On July 8, 2016, @Double sharp added that Aristid von Grosse predicted in a 1965 Oganesson's properties. Unfortunately, the only references to this I can find are mirror sites of Wikipedia itself. Double_sharp, or anyone else, do you have a source for von Grosse?

TypistMonkey (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TypistMonkey: Here's von Grosse's original article. Probably it is hard to find because (1) his name's abbreviated to "A. V. Grosse" on it and (2) in that time period, radon was often called "emanation".
P.S. In fact the ref was already in the article (where it was used to cite other things), just not present at this place. So I've put it in at the appropriate place. (And, actually, von Grosse's prediction is also mentioned in the next reference by Fricke, on p. 126.) Double sharp (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it proven that it is solid?

I have been wondering if any serious scientists predict it as a gas or even consider the possibility. 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:E069:4922:80B0:884B (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent studies seem to have confirmed the cited 2005 prediction that it is solid and reactive, see e.g. "Oganesson: a noble gas element that is neither noble nor a gas" (2020), and, if you have institutional logins, the citations at the bottom of the "The Late p-Block Elements" section of "Understanding Periodic and Non-periodic Chemistry in Periodic Tables". I would like to add some more references to the article, but there's something weird going on with the Nash 2005 citation that I don't understand — it just says <ref name="Nash2005"/> all over the place, there's no actual specification of the reference that I can find. So I'm scared of breaking something. Elwoz (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand what's going on with the Nash 2005 reference but I was able to add a reference to the 2020 "neither noble nor a gas" paper without breaking it. Elwoz (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]